What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Light Sport Aircraft - Lets Clear This Up

R

RV6junkie

Active Member
What is, and what isn't, a Light Sport Aircraft seems to be questioned and debated in many of the RV12 threads. Often, we forget that there are several categories of LSA

- LSA, Standard Airworthiness
- S-LSA, Special LSA
- E-LSA, Experimental
- Experimental Amateur-Built

Often not recognized is that an experimental amateur-built aircraft, meeting the requirements of an LSA, also qualifies as an aircraft that can be flown by an LSA pilot.

I think that the confusion of what aircraft do and don't meet the LSA requirements revolves around the experimental category. In simple terms, any experimental amateur-built aircraft that meets the definition of an LSA (see below) can be flown by a sport pilot. An aircraft that is registered as an E-LSA aircraft is not subject to the 51% rule. This portion of the rule was created for those pilots/builders that have "fat" Part 103 aircraft. It gave those operators the ability to bring those aircraft into the LSA regs, even though the aircraft don't meet the amateur-built (51%) rule.

Another difference between the E-LSA aircraft and one that is Experimental, Amateur-Built is an aircraft that is registered as E-LSA requires that the owner undergo training to perform maintenance on the aircraft, where an Experimental, Amateur-Built aircraft does not have the training requirement.

Now, with all of that said, it is my hope that the RV12 will simply be an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft that meets the requirements of the LSA category. I copied the following from the EAA's website:

Any aircraft that meets the definition of a light-sport aircraft as called out in FAR Part 1.1 is eligible to be operated by a sport pilot. These aircraft can be certificated in any category, such as standard, experimental amateur-built, experimental exhibition, experimental light-sport aircraft (E-LSA), or special light-sport aircraft (S-LSA).

Light-Sport Aircraft:
The FAA defines a light-sport aircraft as an aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet the following:
? Maximum gross takeoff weight?1,320 lbs, or 1,430 lbs for seaplanes.
? Lighter-than-air maximum gross weight?660 lbs (300 kg.)
? Maximum stall speed?51 mph (45 knots)
? Maximum speed in level flight with maximum continuous power (Vh)?138 mph (120 knots)
? Single or two-seat aircraft only
? Single, reciprocating engine (if powered), including rotary or diesel engines
? Fixed or ground-adjustable propeller
? Unpressurized cabin
? Fixed landing gear, except for an aircraft intended for operation on water or a glider
? Can be manufactured and sold ready-to-fly under a new Special Light-Sport aircraft certification category. Aircraft must meet industry consensus standards. Aircraft under this certification may be used for sport and recreation, flight training, and aircraft rental.
? Can be licensed Experimental Light-Sport Aircraft (E-LSA) if kit- or plans-built. Aircraft under this certification may be used only for sport and recreation and flight instruction for the owner of the aircraft.
? Can be licensed Experimental Light-Sport Aircraft (E-LSA) if the aircraft has previously been operated as an ultralight but does not meet the FAR Part 103 definition of an ultralight vehicle. These aircraft must be transitioned to E-LSA category no later than January 31, 2008.
? Will have FAA registration?N-number.
? Aircraft category and class includes: Airplane (Land/Sea), Gyroplane, Airship, Balloon, Weight-Shift-Control ("Trike" Land/Sea), Glider, and Powered Parachute.
? U.S. or foreign manufacture of light-sport aircraft is authorized.
? Aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificate that meet above specifications may be flown by sport pilots. However, the aircraft must remain in standard category and cannot be changed to light-sport aircraft category. Holders of a sport pilot certificate may fly an aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificate if it meets the definition of a light-sport aircraft.
? May be operated at night if the aircraft is equipped per FAR 91.205, if such operations are allowed by the aircraft's operating limitations and the pilot holds at least a Private Pilot certificate and a minimum of a third-class medical.
 
lawrence said:
so ,the rv-12owner/ builder has to"undergo training to perform maintenance on the aircraft" ?? who performs the annual condition inspection on the rv-12 ? the builder ? an a&p mechanic? any owner who has "undergone training to perform maintenance on the aircraft" ?
Click to expand...
If the LSA is constructed under the experimental amatuer built category then it is no different than any other experimental. That is, the builder of record can do the annual inspection. If a person purchased an aircraft and did not build it then they will either have to get with the original builder of record and he will have to inspect the aircraft or they will have to have a certified A&P sign off on any inspections. The last time I read any information coming from Vans concerning the RV-12 it was stated that their intentions were to only offer the RV-12 as an Experimental-AB kit.
 
Last edited:
You know, the LSA category and light sport pilot's license was introduced to make aviation simpler for weekend flyers. I have to say that I really think the FAA botched the simplicity of the rule. There are so many ifs, buts and maybes in the rules that there is no way someone just getting into aviation is going to understand it all without someone sitting down and explaining it all. I really do think they should re-evaluate the rule to simplify it. Heck, most private/commercial/ATP pilots out there are confused! Just look at the differing opinions on these forums! :)
 
Thank you I thought I was the only one

Jamie said:
I have to say that I really think the FAA botched the simplicity of the rule. There are so many ifs, buts and maybes in the rules that there is no way someone just getting into aviation is going to understand it all without someone sitting down and explaining it all. I really do think they should re-evaluate the rule to simplify it. Heck, most private/commercial/ATP pilots out there are confused! Just look at the differing opinions on these forums! :)
Click to expand...
Here Here! Jamie my feelings exactly. I thought I was the only one. Its a mess.

Also the artificial 1320 lb gross and 120 kt limits will be violated often. How is the FAA going to police that? They can't and will not. Why not a HP limit instead of a speed limit? Well a weight limit is more restrictive to American direct drive large displacement engines.

I am afraid politics and special interest of European light plane and engine manufactures got involved. They did not want a 1500 lb gross because too many existing GA planes of US design would compete with real planes with real engines like the Lyc O230/320 and Continental O200/IO240.

Sorry I am not impressed with Rotax. They cost +$16,000 and are not cheap to run or overhaul. Its just a light 80/100 hp engine, but actual power to weight ratio is no better than the larger 320 and 360 Lycs and less than the new IO340 "stroker".

The down side of the Lyc O235 and O200 Continental for LSA is they are a little too heavy to power planes limited to 1320lb gross. Also Kit Fox builders who use the O200 vs. the Rotax option find the Continental provides more climb rate.

It seems like this LSA class almost requires a Rotax? Is that wrong? Well I don't think it serves GA or America's interest.

They might as well call it the LSA *rotax class. It seems 90% of the planes are from Europe, based round that continents class of plane that excludes the heavier existing light US planes. I am boycotting LSA. Boo on LSA. :D
(* I guess jabiru is making LSA in roads)

We shall see. I see $90,000 piper cubs and think, you can buy a real J3 (a nice used one ) for 1/4 to 1/2, but of course with more gross weight. You can get a super Cub for less than 90K that makes the LSA look silly.

I'd rather have an old Piper Colt, Pacer or Tripacer for $15,000 to $35,000 than one of those little plastic $75,000 euro birds. A piper Colt, two seat rag and tube two seat with Lyc O235 is a perfect LSA except for the weight and stall speed is a few mph too hot. However in an accident the Colt will save your butt, where some of these light weight glass LSA's look like delicate eggs waiting to hatch there pilot out in an accident.

The FAA missed the boat and over regulated LSA's to death. A nice idea but I suggest they should have had allowed 1,500-1,600 lb gross, two seats, no speed limit but a HP limit of say 100-125hp. They also should allow flights over 10,000 ft msl for terrain. The medical catch 22 is a mess.

I think they could have made changes to the recreational pilot ticket or expanded the ultralight limitations to cover what the LSA is doing.

Special endorsements, training and experience for ultra light pilots to fly a passenger and of course super sized higher weight ulta-lights, which will be allowed short cross country's. (night? probably not).

The recreational pilot could go to self certified medical and be able to fly cross country and night with some special training and endorsements, which apply to getting a private ticket. Why not?​

I ask DID WE NEED THIS LSA CLASS? Will it improve and promote aviation? I hope so. I hope I am wrong.
 
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot said:
We shall see. I see $90,000 piper cubs and think, you can buy a real J3 (a nice used one ) for 1/4 to 1/2, but of course with more gross weight. You can get a super Cub for less than 90K that makes the LSA look silly.
Click to expand...

I believe that the original J3 qualifies as an LSA

gmcjetpilot said:
I'd rather have an old Piper Colt, Pacer or Tripacer for $15,000 to $35,000 than one of those little plastic $75,000 euro birds. A piper Colt, two seat rag and tube two seat with Lyc O235 is a perfect LSA except for the weight and stall speed is a few mph too hot.
Click to expand...

Someone getting out of their modern automobile looks at the old aircraft with disdain. If we want aviation to grow, the industry needs to offer aircraft that meet the expectations of new-entry pilots. Lets face it, LSA and SP isn't meant for us aging pilots. It's intended to bring new blood into aviation.
 
RV6junkie said:
Lets face it, LSA and SP isn't meant for us aging pilots. It's intended to bring new blood into aviation.
Click to expand...

As part of the "new blood" I dont see how any of this will benefit me or other in similar situation. PPL= $6-7k for training, and $25k for a Cessna 140/150/Tamahawk, etc, plus $2-3k a year of insurance. I dont see where $60-100k aircraft help us with purchasing, renting, or insuring. Training may be less, perhaps 1/3, but really, thats going to be offset in aircraft cost very fast. Sounds like a solution to a problem that doest exist.
 
Well allow me to rant some more

RV6junkie said:
I believe that the original J3 qualifies as an LSA
Click to expand...
OK thanks. I thought the gross is 1500 lbs and the FAA, as I was told, is being stingy, not handing out LSA's to existing planes, even if the GW is changed to 1320lbs. I think the C140 was denied and would be a good choice?

Also can a real light duty plane stand up to new pilots? They are not lighter than air and can come down fast and no safer than a 1,600 lb C-152. "Ye ground cometh up and smite thee mighty" regardless of gross plane wt.



RV6junkie said:
Someone getting out of their modern automobile looks at the old aircraft with disdain. If we want aviation to grow, the industry needs to offer aircraft that meet the expectations of new-entry pilots. Lets face it, LSA and SP isn't meant for us aging pilots. It's intended to bring new blood into aviation.
Click to expand...
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I look at many of these planes and think Feminine. They look like Girly man planes. :D Sorry I said it. As far as the Cub clone, great looking plane, but you call that PROGRESS! We had them in the 1940's. Wow back to the 40's. Fine if we went back to 40's prices. A J3 cost $2,195 in 1945. (that's $23,000 in 2005 dollers) :D

If some one only will get into aviation if the upholstery is nice as their Lexus or the airframe looks swoopiee, they are not typical student pilots. Well may be they are rich student pilots, but most student pilots are poor and will be glad to fly a C150 if its cheap. Rich pilots will learn in a Cirrus or Lacair Columbia at $270 an hour anyway not a LSA. Its performance and cost that drives the training. Fancy CAR like amenities is not the problem with aviation.

What would you rather have a LSA or RV? Do you feel bad getting out of your fancy Lexus or Porsche and getting into your RV? I don't because it goes almost 4 times what I can legally drive a 911.

The FAA should have included typical two seat GA planes and trainers like the C140 thru C152 and Piper Colt, Tomahawk, Ercoupe . However that would have cut into the trade of those +30 LSA's that popped up, most from Eastern Europe. I just don't think it serves US manufactures and the US market very well. If expanding GA is the goal than they should have included MORE planes as LSA not less.

Also higher LSA gross would mean more engines could be used, lowering the cost. Right now its a Rotax monopoly. I wounder if Bombardier took any congressmen on expensive bizz jet trips. Bombardier of course owns LearJet and a fractional jet operation. It would be interesting to see. Never mind, politicians are never influenced by soft money and campaign contributions.

What really drives traning is $MONEY$. I can't imagine new $80,000 LSA's will lower flying cost. Gas burn no big difference. They don't do anything more than a C150 or a Tomahawk. Where is the LSA greatness? Also they look like they will wear out. A 1970's C150 is still around. I can't see these flying LSA eggs being around in 30 years. They look like toys.

Cost of medicals? Compared to a 1/2 tank of gas, not much. Everyone should have a medical, including LSA pilots, but the LSA pilot should have a more generous medical deficiency allowance. Heart bypass? OK. High blood pressure? OK. One eye? Sure. I'd rather have a pilot flying over my house with a known medical problem montitored by a doctor, than a LSA pilot flying over my head unknowing of his health or denying his medical condition. Self certify means if YOU know, you ground your self. There's no real legal gain, at least if you're honest.

The cost of the LSA rating will not be significantly lower than a private. It takes 40 hours to learn to fly. Pilot can and do get their pvt rating in min time. I bet LSA ratings will go longer. I know you can get a private in 40 hours. I did it and so did many of my students.


Let's get real. typical guys, if honest, flight gear and all are about +190 lbs each. Plus two hours fuel and reserve, call it 100 lbs. That means the empty wt must be 800 lbs or less. That is a light weight airframe. Many LSA's list 800 lbs. However many admit they really weigh 900 lbs equipped out the door. So either no fuel or each pilot lose about 30 lbs. Skinny CFI's needed. I know many LSA's will be flown over weight. Pilots will not be any less likely to crash or lose control because the planes gross limit is 1320 lbs.

Many LSA look like they will be easy to damage w/ student activity. As a CFI, I want something stout to teach in. A hard landing in a C150 may only be an embarrassment to the student, where it might fold the gear in a LSA. Of course the fiberglass planes will be expensive or impossible to repair if smacked too hard.

LSA advantage of easier aircraft certification is good and self maintenance is also good, but I think they missed the boat on many other rules. My advice to anyone starting out is get a private pilots license. It will NOT cost much more if you get it close the the 40 hour min. I got my private in 40 hours. Later when I was CFI'ing many of my private pilot students got their license under 50 hours.
 
Last edited:
We had a gentleman come and speak to our EAA chapter about the LSA/LSP rules. He was on the rule making committee and offered a lot of insight into the rule making process and what they were thinking.

He mentioned that the gross weight/max speed consideration was due to the amount of kinetic energy generated by the aircraft (no doubt in my mind this is fallout from 9/11). Never mind the fact that everything on earth FALLS at 9.81m/s/s until terminal velocity is reached. :rolleyes:

The "previously denied medical" issue was a last minute add-in. Our speaker told us that it was a young FAA guy that wanted it for liability purposes. The thinking was that if the FAA *knew" a person had a medical problem and allowed them to fly anyway, then somehow the FAA would be responsible if there was an issue. So yes, in a way it is a don't ask, don't tell policy.

In my opinion, light sport has three things against it:

1) Complication and misunderstanding
2) The speed/weight limitations severely limit the available aircraft.
3) The prices of the aircraft available.
 
gmcjetpilot said:
I think they could have made changes to the recreational pilot ticket or expanded the ultralight limitations to cover what the LSA is doing.

Special endorsements, training and experience for ultra light pilots to fly a passenger and of course super sized higher weight ulta-lights, which will be allowed short cross country's. (night? probably not).


I ask DID WE NEED THIS LSA CLASS? Will it improve and promote aviation? I hope so. I hope I am wrong.​
Click to expand...

George, I think this is the specific point most people are missing regarding LSA.... to bring the Ultralight guys into the regulated community.

It's true that ultralights will still be allowed out there, but at 254#'s empty weight. I suspect that the increased targeting of "Fat" Ultralights, and the elimination of the two seat trainers is what initially drove most of these regulations.

I can't find it in my heart to justify having aircraft capable of flight almost into the Flight Levels, able to penetrate all airspace, operating at almost every airport I like to frequent, flown by pilots whose only qualifications were having enough cash to plunk down the previous afternoon to buy their wings. I know many (most?) ultralights are are flown as intended, by people that are as capable as many of the certificated pilots that are out there. But then, there are some that are not, and pose a true risk to the rest of the flying community.

The EAA jumped on the LSA bandwagon because they had no choice... if not them, then someone else would. Then, the aging pilot community, terrified of losing their medicals, became the perfect target audience.

I suspect the regs became as convoluted as they did because every special interest group wanted to participate, and concensus regulations never make sense. (Anyone familiar with current environmental regulations will attest to that!)

The truly unfortuneate result of this is that many of the ultralight guys aren't going ahead with the Sport Pilot License because of the regs themselves, or they can't find DE's to administer flight tests in their single place airplanes!

Like you, I'm not sure we need the Sport Pilot class, other than to plug a gaping hole in the regulatory framework of Part 103. I would like to think it won't hurt anything, but I don't know that it will help either.

Something truly ironic about all of this.....

In any case, at least when I see one of those guy in the pattern with me, I
can feel comfortable that they had at least the same level of training that I had back in the 70's before tort law changed the rules.

My $0.02!​
 
George,
I think we might have missed the orignal point of sport pilot- I suspect it was conceived as a way for FAA to regulate/license all of the unregulated ultralight vehile traffic that morphed out of hang gliding, ballooning, and maybe gyrocopters. If that was the idea, it is might be a good idea, at least the part about requiring a modicum of training.

I realize how difficult it is to define a wide class of vehicles, and therein lies the problem- performance or characteristic based. I really do NOT like the weight limitations, because it probably will make folks skimp on safety items, things like radios and instrumentation, sufficient fuel, structural integrity, sufficient power, and overdesigned parts.

Ill bet the small GA planes we all love were thrown in as an afterthought, then entered the potential licencing hassles, which brought in the drivers license medicals. FWIW, I think the recreational pilot approach was/is a better entry point into privite pilot privleges and all the costs involved.
 
ddurakovich said:
I can't find it in my heart to justify having aircraft capable of flight almost into the Flight Levels, able to penetrate all airspace, operating at almost every airport I like to frequent, flown by pilots whose only qualifications were having enough cash to plunk down the previous afternoon to buy their wings. I know many (most?) ultralights are are flown as intended, by people that are as capable as many of the certificated pilots that are out there. But then, there are some that are not, and pose a true risk to the rest of the flying community.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Ultralights will continue to be flown by pilots that have enough money to plunk down for their wings as that regulation hasn't changed.

Many (most?) certificated aircraft are flown as intended by licensed pilots but there are a few that pose a much larger risk to society than any ultralight. Which would you rather have crash into your house, a C-172 with 80 gallons of fuel or a 800 lb gross ultralight with 20 gallons? Easy choice, neither right? Not really fair to say just the ultralight guys are dangerous now is it?
 
cobra said:
George,
I think we might have missed the orignal point of sport pilot- I suspect it was conceived as a way for FAA to regulate/license all of the unregulated ultralight vehile traffic that morphed out of hang gliding, ballooning, and maybe gyrocopters. If that was the idea, it is might be a good idea, at least the part about requiring a modicum of training.
Click to expand...

Don't really think this was the original point of Sport Pilot as Ultralights were not/are not "unregulated". Also training while not required for single seaters it certainly is encouraged, two seat ultralight pilots are required to be trained. Actually, there are "licensed" ultralight trainers. True ultralights will continue to fly under the current regulations.

cobra said:
Ill bet the small GA planes we all love were thrown in as an afterthought, then entered the potential licencing hassles, which brought in the drivers license medicals. FWIW, I think the recreational pilot approach was/is a better entry point into private pilot privileges and all the costs involved.
Click to expand...

In my humble opinion I think most people put much more thought into why Sport Pilot came about than needed. It's really quite simple. Like most things in the United States it was/is driven by money. Older pilots tend to lose their medicals. Older pilots tend to have more disposable income. Older pilots tend to have more "spare" time. Older pilots tend to vote more. Younger people tend to want newer, better things. Younger people tend to want things, cheaper, faster, NOW.

So, how do you get more pilots/planes in the air? Let the older pilots have their flying privileges back. Let the younger people have licenses easier, faster, cheaper.

So what does the FAA get from the deal? More jobs, job security, happier users (voters).

Rec Pilot is way to restrictive, Sport Pilot fixed that.
 
The medical issues and aging pilot population certainly were a big factor but...

Another perspective on Sport Pilot is that outside of America, in many or most places general aviation as Americans know it is dead. There are very few old, cheap airplanes. The relatively unregulated and fairly successful VLA "movement" (if you will) has filled the gap overseas for recreational pilots. many new designs have been produced and they are selling new factory built 2-seaters in measurable volume - a lot has happened overseas in the last 10-15 years. The US LSA regulation allows Americans access to the factory built designs that are already being produced for that market, as well as encouraging American companies to develop competitive designs without a huge certification burden for domestic sales.

I think the future of general aviation is an international Light Sport market, plus a smaller certified GA market that's primarily US domestic, served by companies like Cirrus etc at much higher cost. Plus homebuilt GA, which is also primarily a US market because homebuilts are not legal for the international flying club-based market.

The FAA was way behind the eight ball in this, not leading. The reason for their delay is the relative health of conventional GA in the US, based mostly on cheap used airplanes and cheap gas.... With some help from kit builts flown by pilots who learned in older GA planes.

Both cheap used airplanes and cheap gas are going to fade as time goes on, and nobody is building conventionally-certified basic trainers and sport aircraft. Given that situation, it seems to me that in the future international-style LSA would have been the only choice for the FAA. At that point US manufacturers would be even further behind. So they might as well get going now, and build an industry to support basic training, club ownership and other commercial operations that will be essential if light aviation is to continue in the US.

Not that many people are going to be learning to fly in homebuilts and antiques after the current aging bubble in the pilot population isn't around 20-30 years from now. So it seems to me its either FAA LSA now with a competitive US industry, or FAA LSA later, served mostly by well developed imported aircraft after the current US training fleet is finally worn out.

Will
 
Last edited:
I just got back from the Sport Pilot Tour in San Diego (Brown Field). From what I saw the average age of the crowd must have been at least 50. There were a few folks in their 30's or 40's but the majority were guys in their 60's if not older. At the presentation about Sport Pilot by Ron Wagner I was not surrounded by younger or middle aged folks wanting to become Sport Pilots but instead by much older long time pilots. Many of the questions were not from those few younger guys asking 'where or how do i become a Sport Pilot?' but instead were from the many older pilots asking 'I've had a heart attack can I still be a Sport Pilot? or I know I wont pass my medical, what kind of flying can I do as a Sport Pilot?. The majority of the folks standing around the LSA displays were also older gentlemen.

I guess I was expecting a mixture of young, wide eyed, cant wait to be a pilot types and a few older pilots but was surprised at the older average age at this Sport Pilot only event. From this it would appear that the Sport Pilot movements main draw so far is from older pilots that suspect thay will no longer be able to pass their medical. Thats fine but I dont think thats where where the large numbers are expected to come from to make Sport Pilot a success. Ofcoarse that could all change. Mr. Wagner did point out that there seems to be a alot of folks interested in becoming new Sport Pilots but there are still very few places for them to go to get the training to do so.

While I was there I checked into how many flight schools here in San Diego (there are several) were offering Sport Pilot training. After all its been a couple years since Sport Pilot came out, this is a big city with a long aviation history and almost year round flying weather too. Well I was told so far there is only one and that its in Ramona, some 45 miles away :eek: I cant imagine tryng to get Sport Pilot training in smaller cities or rural areas.
 
Last edited:
Nice debate

If LSA's get more guy and gals in the air, it is a good thing. We shall see. I just don't know if the cost to us the tax payer is worth it.

One thing that the LSA category did was make certification of airframes cheaper and easier. I think they could have done that with existing experimentals, like say may be RV's!!!! Also the cheaper and easier mechanic certification to work on LSA's was goodness. TWO GOOD THINGS, but than they over regulated the heck out of it.

People say LSA will excite aviation. Well look at a picture of RV-12 fly and than look at another RV in flight (3, 4, 6, 7, 9) and tell me which excites you more? Case close. The LSA performance is so ho-hum its not going to excite. The diff in price to get a pvt or sport pilot is small.

I already made my point about medicals. All get medicals but SP's (sport pilots) have WAY very generous allowances. If they are marginal than they need to visit the Doc more. If they can get a class III than great. It's the old joke, if you could heard the nurse tell you what room to go to and you could see to find it, your ears and eyes are good.


Two seat or less RV's should have be the new LSA. That would have been cool. However it would not have opened the free market/global economy of the American market to others. What did we (USA) get out of it? I hate to be nationalistic or protectionist, but they regulated a plane specification that requires a two stroke or rotax. What's in Americas best interest? People complain and hate America but want us to buy their stuff? Of course we know all know Americans are fat? :rolleyes: Don't get me started, but we should do whats in Americas best interest. 1320 lb plane gross and a really big, big country and fat people ( :rolleyes: ) don't fit. The gross would have been 1500 or 1600 lbs. THERE WAS NO REAL REASON TO LIMIT IT TO 1320 lbs.

They should have added at least 100-200 lbs to the max gross and a few MPH to the stall. That would have opened the LSA market to 1000's of used classic planes that cost $15,000, not what a new typical $85,000 LSA cost. Older gents who are retired can't afford that. The cost savings in medicals and maintenance is so small it does not justify it. Again they should have made EXPERIMENTALS LSA's.

I understand ultralights have needed two seat trainers forever. They had that waiver for two place training which is or has expired. Well they should have expanded the ultra light class with the ULS, ultra light license, for two place ultra light planes. On the high end existing experimental aircraft should have been considered as LSA's that SP's could fly. Can you imagine RV-9's you could rent or train in? If you can think at RV speed you can fly a Cessna.

If you add the LSA ease of aircraft certification and maintenance qualifications with expanding existing classes, ultralight, recreational and experimental aircraft, with super liberal SP medicals we could have had something. If you fail a Class III you are done as of now, with out the pain of going thru a FAA medical nightmare. That is a catch 22 and stupid. A guy who never had a aero-medical about to have a massive coronary can get a LSA license if he just walked into a DMV? They did not think it out. WHAT IS SAFE is what was needed. The safe thing is get guys and gals into a doctor. It may even save peoples lives who normally may not get a medical.

None of this of course would not be a big incentive or advantage for the 30 euro plane and (one) engine maker'(s). Euro airplane makers could not compete and market in the USA with the vast invintory of used planes and experimentals which are better. The foreign made certified planes like the diamond are very expensive and not real attractive to the individual. Frankly I don't think they are that great. Yea they have swoopie curves, so what? They cost a fortune and are plastic. I doubt you will see a 30 year old Diamond. They look like they are too light duty and more over its hard to inspect and repair composites. You still see 60 year old pipers and Cessna's and others. They made them to last. However they also weighed more.

Nuff said, nice debate
 
Last edited:
Mike - EAA and AOPA have done virtually zero advertising outside of the aviation community to attract new-entrant pilots. Until such time, we will be recycling old pilots into sport pilots.

GMC (my initials too) - Did you ever stop to think that most low time pilots don't want to fly a high performance aircraft such as the RV's. Nor should they be flying such aircraft. There is a reason that many of us started flying in 150/152's, J3's, 7AC's and the like - they were slow and light enough for a new pilot to handle. Most new pilots aren't thinking at 180mph - 100 mph is more than enough.

And this is not "the Rotax" class. The Rotax is an engine that has good experience, and is well supported - so it is a logical FIRST choice. If the LSA movement "takes-off", I'm sure we will see many light-weight 100 HP engines entering the market. This isn't an Oliver Stone movie - no one has conspired with Rotax so they can take over the world.

As Jamie stated, "100 to 200 pounds and few more mph" adds significant energy to the aircraft in the event of an accident.

I just don't understand why some people have such a negative attitude towards the sport pilot rating and light sport aircraft. Just because someone takes a different approach, or has a different attitude towards flying doesn't make them less a pilot or some kind of aero-moron. Flying is already too expensive, too regulated, and has a poor image. Why resist something that is intended to bring aviation closer to the average guy/gal.

What a bunch of haters.

This life time (since 16) 44 year-old young pilot with thousands of hours will be embracing this new area of aviation. If you don't like it, or just don't get it - please do throw a wet blanket on it. If this new area of aviation fails - aviation as a hobby in the US will fail.
 
Last edited:
Well spoken.

RV6junkie said:
Mike - EAA and AOPA have done virtually zero advertising outside of the aviation community to attract new-entrant pilots. Until such time, we will be recycling old pilots into sport pilots.

When was the last time you saw ANY advertising for "Learn to FLY!" in your local media? If an FBO takes the initiative and starts advertising "Earn your Pilots license at half the cost you thought you could!"... you might get quite a few bites... and start pulling a few more of the dreamers in to aviation.

GMC (my initials too) - Did you ever stop to think that most low time pilots don't want to fly a high performance aircraft such as the RV's. Nor should they be flying such aircraft. There is a reason that many of us started flying in 150/152's, J3's, 7AC's and the like - they were slow and light enough for a new pilot to handle. Most new pilots aren't thinking at 180mph - 100 mpg is more than enough.

I am one of those low time... fairly new returnee's to aviation. I am looking at the RV-12 because I want something reasonably priced, quick to build (pulled rivets) that I can build over 18 months or so compared to a 9A which will probably take me 5 years. Being new - I am more than happy with 115 - 120 kts. (172 speed!) for now as I build hours and experience. This LSA movement has given folks like me the exciting thought that I can afford to own a plane that ISN'T 30+ years old!

...If this new area of aviation fails - aviation as a hobby in the US will fail.
Click to expand...
Maybe so. It will be a continued slow death that EAA and kitbuilders won't be able to sustain.

And while George expresses some valid points... I think we all need to hope this works at some level.
 
RV6junkie said:
Mike - EAA and AOPA have done virtually zero advertising outside of the aviation community to attract new-entrant pilots. Until such time, we will be recycling old pilots into sport pilots.

GMC (my initials too) - Did you ever stop to think that most low time pilots don't want to fly a high performance aircraft such as the RV's. Nor should they be flying such aircraft. There is a reason that many of us started flying in 150/152's, J3's, 7AC's and the like - they were slow and light enough for a new pilot to handle. Most new pilots aren't thinking at 180mph - 100 mph is more than enough.

And this is not "the Rotax" class. The Rotax is an engine that has good experience, and is well supported - so it is a logical FIRST choice. If the LSA movement "takes-off", I'm sure we will see many light-weight 100 HP engines entering the market. This isn't an Oliver Stone movie - no one has conspired with Rotax so they can take over the world.

As Jamie stated, "100 to 200 pounds and few more mph" adds significant energy to the aircraft in the event of an accident.

I just don't understand why some people have such a negative attitude towards the sport pilot rating and light sport aircraft. Just because someone takes a different approach, or has a different attitude towards flying doesn't make them less a pilot or some kind of aero-moron. Flying is already too expensive, too regulated, and has a poor image. Why resist something that is intended to bring aviation closer to the average guy/gal.

What a bunch of haters.

This life time (since 16) 44 year-old young pilot with thousands of hours will be embracing this new area of aviation. If you don't like it, or just don't get it - please do throw a wet blanket on it. If this new area of aviation fails - aviation as a hobby in the US will fail.
Click to expand...

I think those are all excellent points. Well put. I've got to add that the objections to Light Sport remind of two historic precedents... The reaction of Waco pilots when A65 powered Piper Cubs and Aeroncas showed up and put Waco out of business, and (2) General Motors when confronted by Nissan and Toyota.

The idea of protecting US industry by implementing a law very different from international norms strikes me as odd... There is no factory built light aircraft industry in the US to speak of, little to protect, just the remnants of something that started downhill in 1978, and is essentially gone. The idea in my mind should be to restart the American light aircraft industry before its too late to compete with the industry that has already restarted elsewhere. Big stuff like Cirrus and Columbia is doing OK, but that's not what were talking about here. Cessna 172s aren't exactly goign to compete with LSA on any level! New pilots don't buy anything costing $200K plus, flight schools don't want to, and Liberty (some Englishmen in Florida) is about all that's active under that price but above LSA.

My guess is that the US FAA intentionally limted the weight to get the old airplanes out of the picture and push US industry into the 21st century. Planned obsolence, FAA style, for the long term benefit of US industry and pilots.

I'll close by saying that the Tecnams (all metal, built much like a Mooney) in particular make something like the idea of a brand new 1978 Cessna 152 (or Traumahawk, God forbid) look poor in terms of performance and build quaility. Honda Civic versus Ford. Nothing particularly wrong with the Ford, really, but people will buy the "Honda" unless "Ford" makes an effort to compete. Times change, and will continue to do so over the next 30 years. Start now, or die. At least Cessna shows signs of understanding that witht heir newe LSA prototype!

BTW, I think the glass LSAs can last a long time too, just like sailplanes do, and they can be repaired. Some would say more easily than a sheet metal airplane. But more to the point none of the buyers are going to care whether they'll last 60 years, just as few who bought a new Cessna 120 in 1946 cared. They'll make more, just like Doritos!

Let's just hope the stubborn aviation boomers don't hold US aviation firmly entrenched in the 20th century. I don't want to drive a retro-Mustang and I sure as heck don't want to fly a Piper Colt retread either (worst flying airplane I've flown so far was a Tripacer)

Will
 
Last edited:
PS I saw A LOT of the general public at the Brown Field LSA event yesterday, some sounding like they might spend $100K on an airplane. I bet 30-40% of the attendees were non-pilots. That was encouraging to me. Should've seen the looks on some faces when we hand propped the Luscombe to life, as it needs to be started. :D :D They made the airplanes start up and taxi through the onlookers, I'm guessing so everybody could have a look.

It was a fun event. The only wierdness was the Brown controllers, they all seem to be new recruits form the military, unaccustomed to dealing with large numbers of relatively independent minded light airplane pilots!

Controller: "Stamman XXX, ident... What kind of airplane are you?... Can you spell that?..."

Response: "S T E A R M A N... I'll turn the smoke on so you can see me" :D :D

Will
 
Last edited:
[COLOR=MediumTurquoise[COLOR=DarkGreen]](Many LSA look like they will be easy to damage w/ student activity. As a CFI, I want something stout to teach in. A hard landing in a C150 may only be an embarrassment to the student, where it might fold the gear in a LSA. Of course the fiberglass planes will be expensive or impossible to repair if smacked too hard.)[/COLOR][/COLOR]

I can attest to that statement...I recently was checked out in the Allegro 2000. It's a nice little plane and is the least expensive to rent while I'm building. As I was getting the check out, the CFI told me if I did a hard landing, I needed to check the main gear as they have already had to repair it twice. They also have done several repairs on the tail skid (it is a tri gear)... trying to beef it up. I agee that many of these planes will not be around in 20 to 30 years.
Dan B
 
Last edited:
genatomwill said:
PS I saw A LOT of the general public at the Brown Field LSA event yesterday, some sounding like they might spend $100K on an airplane. I bet 30-40% of the attendees were non-pilots. That was encouraging to me. Should've seen the looks on some faces when we hand propped the Luscombe to life, as it needs to be started. :D :D They made the airplanes start up and taxi through the onlookers, I'm guessing so everybody could have a look.

It was a fun event. The only wierdness was the Brown controllers, they all seem to be new recruits form the military, unaccustomed to dealing with large numbers of relatively independent minded light airplane pilots!

Controller: "Stamman XXX, ident... What kind of airplane are you?... Can you spell that?..."

Response: "S T E A R M A N... I'll turn the smoke on so you can see me" :D :D

Will
Click to expand...

Hey Will, did you attend any of Ron Wagners lectures? I was trying to remember (old age) some of the more interesting points that he made regarding SP.

One was the 10,000ft ceiling. If I remember right, he said that was the max because thats the height at wich GA can accelerate to 250kts (300mph) and they did not want the slower LSA's in the way.

The other thing I remember was the fact that you cannot alter an aircraft to make it an LSA if it has been flying outside of the LSA specs already. He said that the Cessna 120/140 clubs were to blame. They apparently managed to alter their aircraft to conform to the LSA specs and were allowed (early on) to do so by the FAA. Despite EAA's plea's not to do so, they bragged about 'getting away' with it enough to p*** the FAA off and the FAA then made sure to put the cabash on allowing the rest of us to do so. Ron said when he brings this fact up in his lectures the Cessna guys dont like it, but he says its the truth.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but that rule was in effect from the start. It didn't "get changed".
 
DanB said:
can attest to that statement...I recently was checked out in the Allegro 2000. It's a nice little plane and is the least expensive to rent while I'm building. As I was getting the check out, the CFI told me if I did a hard landing, I needed to check the main gear as they have already had to repair it twice. They also have done several repairs on the tail skid (it is a tri gear)... trying to beef it up. I agee that many of these planes will not be around in 20 to 30 years.
Dan B
Click to expand...
Some LSA are obviously not designed for the training environment. The IndUS T-211 Thorpedo (love the name, but can you really call a 95 kt airplane a "thorpedo"?) is very good for training - metal construction, strut landing gear for soaking up hard landings, good visibility, easy in crosswinds.

The CTSW is not good for training - more carbon fiber / composite parts to break, very fast for a low time pilot, springy gear. However, as a 80 hr pilot who isn't flying patterns all day anymore, I like flying the CT very much.

So, IMHO, there's a big difference between a LSA for training and a LSA for personal use or renting.
 
The Thorpedo is indeed a rugged airframe. There were 2 flew in here yesterday, one for it's airworthiness certificate (operating on the special flight permit for production flight testing). Not quite sure about the "Thorpedo" name. Don't torpedos usually run in water? They don't offer it on floats. BTW, the 85hp version is called the "Skyskooter".
 
Designer John Thorp.

Homebuilt T-18

Grumman Tiger, Cheetah

His designs were known for performance on low HP.

Kinda like an RV.

MIke
 
Mike,
You left out the most important one. The T-211 was the design that eventually evolved into the Piper Cherokee.
Also for you "youngins" out there, before the RV, the T-18 was THE performance homebuilt.
 
Mike S said:
Designer John Thorp.

...Grumman Tiger, Cheetah...
Click to expand...
Do you have any references for that? Those are developments of a Jim Bede design, of course. If Mr. Thorp was involved, I would like to know about it.
 
Sorry about that

n5lp said:
Do you have any references for that? Those are developments of a Jim Bede design, of course. If Mr. Thorp was involved, I would like to know about it.
Click to expand...

Oops, apparently the old brain fart syndrome has hit.

I searched for Thorps design stuff, found this

http://www.indusav.com/Images/jthorp info.htm

Grumman not listed, although it says he consulted with various mfgs.

I have no other references than an apparently faulty memory.

Mike
 
Mel said:
The Thorpedo is indeed a rugged airframe. There were 2 flew in here yesterday, one for it's airworthiness certificate (operating on the special flight permit for production flight testing). Not quite sure about the "Thorpedo" name. Don't torpedos usually run in water? They don't offer it on floats. BTW, the 85hp version is called the "Skyskooter".
Click to expand...

The airplane was called the Sky Scooter when it was first produced in 1946.

thorp.jpg


The Thorpedo appellation was given to the recent 120 HP Jabiru powered version, to indicate that it has a lot of power. Relative to the original 0-145 Lycoming, which couldn't put out 65 HP on a good day, I guess it does!

While I do like the simplicity of the O-200 engine that's also available (I wouldn't buy one of the relatively unsupported Jabirus) I don't personally see the appeal of a 1946 design for a 2007 price. Its no cheaper than either of the Tecnams, which were designed in the 21st century and both look and fly like it.

Will
 
Last edited:
genatomwill said:
The Thorpedo appellation was given to the recent 120 HP Jabiru powered version, to indicate that it has a lot of power. Relative to the original 0-145 Lycoming, which couldn't put out 65 HP on a good day, I guess it does!

While I do like the simplicity of the O-200 engine that's also available (I wouldn't buy one of the relatively unsupported Jabirus) I don't personally see the appeal of a 1946 design for a 2007 price. Its no cheaper than either of the Tecnams, which were designed in the 21st century and both look and fly like it.

Will
Click to expand...
The J3300 powered T-211 is a great short field airplane. Very retro with the sliding canopy too. If it's too much power for you, get the 85Hp J2200 version. ;)

However, you're right, it is a brand new old airplane and the value is perhaps not as good. I suppose it's the same issue as buying a new 120Hp Citabria for $100,000 - if you want that airplane, you're going to buy it. Otherwise, it may not look that competitive.
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
I suppose it's the same issue as buying a new 120Hp Citabria for $100,000 - if you want that airplane, you're going to buy it. Otherwise, it may not look that competitive.
Click to expand...

I agree... There's another name for low powered Citabria... Its "Aeronca", a loveable old airplane, but if I wanted one I'd be checking trade-a-plane and thinking $30K for a gorgeous example with a C90 and electrical system.

For $100K I'd be looking for something new - wow, this is a whole new and exciting experience for me, ie modern. The only American factory built LSA that looks to be coming along to compete on that right-now, looking forward, not nostalgia, level is the new Cessna. Here's hoping its good enough, and cheap enough.

Will
 
Mike Armstrong said:
The other thing I remember was the fact that you cannot alter an aircraft to make it an LSA if it has been flying outside of the LSA specs already. He said that the Cessna 120/140 clubs were to blame. They apparently managed to alter their aircraft to conform to the LSA specs and were allowed (early on) to do so by the FAA. Despite EAA's plea's not to do so, they bragged about 'getting away' with it enough to p*** the FAA off and the FAA then made sure to put the cabash on allowing the rest of us to do so. Ron said when he brings this fact up in his lectures the Cessna guys dont like it, but he says its the truth.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised there wasn't more reaction to this. If it's true, it made a huge negative impact on Sport Pilot. Having the option of converting the many aircraft out there, new and old, to LSA specs, would have made alot more classic and fun aircraft immediately available to the Sport Pilot community. I suppose if I had posted it over at the Cessna Group I would have been run out of town :D
 
For purposes of clarity...

If an aircraft type qualifies as a Light Sport Aircraft, but the owner has modified the aircraft (such as a gross weight increase via STC) that aircraft can not be operated as an SLA, that aircraft can not be "brought-back" to an approved SLA.
 
Repair vs. Inspect

lawrence said:
"... E-LSA requires that the owner undergo training to perform maintenance on the aircraft, where an Experimental, Amateur-Built aircraft does not have the training requirement. "

I have been seeing some confusion regarding the two concepts of "inspection" and "repair." Perhaps this is because when we take our Cessna in for an annual inspection, we also expect the shop to perform any necessary repairs. To perform the condition inspection of any experimental, there are certain requirements. E-LSA differs from ExAB in that regard, because the E-LSA owner does not have to be the builder of record to be authorized to perform the condition inspection. I own an E-LSA, and I can perform condition inspections upon completion of a two-day course. I can perform repairs or modifications at will without the training. To perform repairs, there are no requirements per FAA. Not even common sense is required.

Chase Snodgrass, CFI
www.flybigbend.com
(website undergoing upgrades at present)
Click to expand...
 
The RV-12 will most likely be an amateur-built. To offer an E-LSA kit, Van would first have to certify the airplane as an S-LSA. And he probably isn't going to do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top